Use of memes

The alt-right’s use of internet memes to advance or express its beliefs, often on websites such as 4chan, has been widely reported.[2][9][11][15][16] Adherents of the ideology have, for instance, been credited for originating the term cuckservative, a portmanteau of cuckold and conservative.[1][11][26] Another example is the use of triple parentheses or “echoes” to identify and target Jews online, which originated on the blog The Right Stuff.[2][7][11][22] The prevalence of memes in alt-right circles has led some commentators to question whether the alt-right is a serious movement rather than just an alternative way to express traditionally conservative beliefs.[6][9][11]

Reaction

Although some conservatives have welcomed the alt-right, others on the mainstream right and left have criticized it as racist or hateful,[5][27] particularly given the its overt hostility to mainstream conservatism and the Republican Party.[1]

Benjamin Welton, writing for The Weekly Standard, described the group as a “highly heterogeneous force” that refuses to “concede the moral high ground to the left.”[1]

Benjamin Wallace-Wells, writing for The New Yorker, described it as a “loosely assembled far-right movement,” but said that its differences from the conventional right-wing in American politics was more a matter of style than substance: “One way to understand the alt-right is not as a movement but as a collective experiment in identity, in the same way that many people use anonymity on the Internet to test more extreme versions of themselves.”[6]

Commentary

Jared Taylor (pictured) has been mentioned as an intellectual representative of the alt-right.[30]

In National Review, Ian Tuttle wrote, “The Alt-Right has evangelized over the last several months primarily via a racist and antisemitic online presence. But for Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos, the Alt-Right consists of fun-loving provocateurs, valiant defenders of Western civilization, daring intellectuals—and a handful of neo-Nazis keen on a Final Solution 2.0, but there are only a few of them, and nobody likes them anyways.”[30] Bokhari and Yiannopoulos describe Jared Taylor, founder of American Renaissance, and Richard B. Spencer, founder of Alternative Right, as representative of intellectuals in the alt-right.[30][31] Cathy Young, writing in The Federalist, stated that the website RadixJournal had replaced the Alternative Right website, and describes aRadixJournal article on abortion that proclaimed that the pro-life position is “‘dysgenic,’ since it encourages breeding by ‘the least intelligent and responsible’ women.”[32]

Cathy Young, writing in Newsday, called the alt-right “a nest of anti-Semitism” inhabited by “white supremacists” who regularly use “repulsive bigotry”.[5]Chris Hayes on All In with Chris Hayesdescribed alt-right as a euphemistic term for “essentially modern-day white supremacy.”[33]BuzzFeed reporter Rosie Gray described the alt-right as “white supremacy perfectly tailored for our times,” saying that it uses “aggressive rhetoric and outright racial and anti-Semitic slurs” and that it has “more in common with European far-right movements than American ones.”[34] Yishai Schwartz, writing for Haaretz, described the alt-right as “vitriolically anti-Semitic,” saying that “The ‘alternative’ that the alt-right presents is, in large part, an alternative to acceptance of Jews,” and warned that it must be taken seriously as a threat.[23]

See also

Hillary Clinton on Thursday delivered a blistering denunciation of Donald J. Trump, saying he had embraced the “alt-right” political philosophy and presenting his choice as an especially ominous turn in a presidential election full of them.

In her most direct critique yet connecting the Trump campaign to white nationalists and the conservative fringe, Mrs. Clinton is framing Mr. Trump’s run as unprecedented in modern politics.

“He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party,” she said.

Asserting that a racially charged and “paranoid fringe” had always existed in politics, she said, “It’s never had the nominee of a major party stoking it, encouraging it and giving it a national megaphone. Until now.”

The speech, at a community college here, comes one week after Mr. Trump named Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News, as his campaign chief. Mr. Bannon has eagerly described the site as “the platform for the alt-right” — a loosely defined and contested term often associated with white nationalist and anti-immigrant sentiment.

So it was that Mrs. Clinton was seeking to describe the “alt-right” to a national audience that might have little familiarity with it.

“The de facto merger between Breitbart and the Trump campaign represents a landmark achievement for the alt-right,” Mrs. Clinton said. “A fringe element has effectively taken over the Republican Party.”

Graphic: In the Race for Registered Voters, Republicans Are Gaining

Mrs. Clinton also noted that David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader, was “jubilant” on his radio show recently while describing Mr. Trump.

“A man with a long history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far dark reaches of the internet, should never run our government or command our military,” Mrs. Clinton said. “If he doesn’t respect all Americans, how can he serve all Americans?”

It was the kind of formal address that Mrs. Clinton had often pursued to communicate her general election message. She also set aside specific events to sternly criticize Mr. Trump’s plans for domestic and foreign policy, and took to the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill., last month — the site of Abraham Lincoln’s “house divided” speech — to appeal to the country’s better angels.

For his part, Mr. Trump has often appeared to court the alt-right community — sometimes more winkingly than others — and his elevation of Mr. Bannon heartened many who identified with the movement.

Mrs. Clinton’s remarks also coincide with an attempted shift in strategy from Mr. Trump, who has spoken with more compassion about people in the country illegally and expressed a desire to win African-American support.

These attempts, which have come in front of predominantly white audiences, have more than occasionally offended minority voters. Mr. Trump has said African-Americans live in neighborhoods resembling “war zones,” struggle to get by on food stamps and constantly face down errant gunfire.

“What do you have to lose?” he has asked.

Mrs. Clinton’s team is straining to hold Mr. Trump to his statements from the Republican primary, reminding voters of his hard line on immigration and arguing that his campaign has encouraged hate groups.

ELECTION 2016By REUTERS1:12Trump on Clinton’s Denunciation of Him

Video

Trump on Clinton’s Denunciation of Him

Donald J. Trump lashed back after reports that his rival Hillary Clinton would accuse him in her next speech of appealing to an anti-immigrant fringe movement.

On Thursday morning, Mrs. Clinton posted a campaign video on Twitterfeaturing clips of white supremacists praising Mr. Trump. It also included a now-famous interview when Mr. Trump initially declined to disavow Mr. Duke.

Near the end of Mrs. Clinton’s video, these words appear: “If Trump wins, they could be running the country.”

Her campaign has also moved to confront other Republicans with Mr. Trump’s most provocative statements.

John D. Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, said that “Republicans up and down the ticket are going to have to choose whether they want to be complicit in this lurch toward extremism, or stand with the voters who can’t stomach it.”

Before the speech on Thursday, Mr. Trump’s campaign suggested that Mrs. Clinton was simply trying to change the subject. “Hillary Clinton’s attempt to delete the single worst week of her political career isn’t going to work,” said Jason Miller, a Trump spokesman, citing controversies over Mrs. Clinton’s private email server and the Clinton Foundation.

At the same time, Mr. Trump’s campaign and Breitbart have reveled recently in conspiracy theories about Mrs. Clinton, suggesting she is in the throes of a health crisis.

In an appearance on Monday on “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” Mrs. Clinton theatrically asked the host to check her pulse and opened a jar of pickles to demonstrate her strength.

Full Definition of bigot

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Story 1: Why Do Many of The Fox News Talking Heads Attack Trump? Sucking Up To Roger Ailes’ Boss Rupert Murdock Who Favors Open Borders And Does Not Want Immigration To Be A Wedge Issue and Support Bloomberg! — Trump Is Right — The Only Reason Fox Was Talking About Immigration Was Trump — Results Count — 24 Million Plus Viewers — Trump Should Attack Rupert Murdock’s Open Borders Position — American People Demand Enforcement of Existing Immigration Laws and Not Immigration Reform — Videos

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 1.

Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.

On October 3, 2007, a press conference and panel discussion was hosted by Californians for Population Stabilization (http://www.CAPSweb.org) and The Social Contract (http://www.TheSocialContract.com) to discuss alternative methodologies for estimating the true numbers of illegal aliens residing in the United States.

Unions Muscle Big Business on Immigration Reform – WSJ Opinion

Sen. Ted Cruz at Hearing on the Administration’s Immigration Enforcement

Rand Paul: More Immigrants, More Tax Revenue

Rand Paul sounds off on fallout over immigration plan

Scott Walker talks immigration, presidential debate

Jeb Bush Discusses Immigration Reform

Roger Ailes Nukes Trump: New Attack on Megyn Kelly Is ‘Disturbing’

The Donald renewed his verbal assault on Megyn Kelly last night, and the head of Fox News struck back for the first time in public, demanding an apology.

Donald Trump—self-avowed “ratings machine” though he might be—has finally gone too far for Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes.The Republican presidential front-runner, who has spent the past day tweeting and re-tweeting nasty insults about Fox News star Megyn Kelly, owes her an apology, Ailes demanded in an extraordinary broadside against the reality-show billionaire, issued on Tuesday afternoon.“Donald Trump’s surprise and unprovoked attack on Megyn Kelly during her show last night is as unacceptable as it is disturbing,” Ailes said about Trump, who has been a frequent interview guest on Fox & Friends, The O’Reilly Factor,Hannity, and other Fox News programs since the Republican presidential debate that Fox News broadcast on August 6 at which Kelly asked him a tough question about his history of calling women “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.”Trump immediately fired back in a statement.“I totally disagree with the FOX statement. I do not think Megyn Kelly is a quality journalist. I think her questioning of me, despite all of the polls saying I won the debate, was very unfair. Hopefully in the future I will be proven wrong and she will be able to elevate her standards to a level of professionalism that a network such as FOX deserves.”

“Donald Trump’s surprise and unprovoked attack on Megyn Kelly during her show last night is as unacceptable as it is disturbing.”

Ailes issued his statement a little more than 12 hours after Trump’s angry tweet storm.

“Megyn Kelly represents the very best of American journalism and all of us at FOX News Channel reject the crude and irresponsible attempts to suggest otherwise,” Ailes continued, referring to a raging series of Trump tweets in which the candidate claimed Kelly was “off her game” on her first show after a 10-day vacation, and retweeted a crass assertion that the former Washington litigator is a “bimbo.”

Ailes, who scheduled The Kelly File at the all-important 9 p.m. prime-time slot, went on:

“I could not be more proud of Megyn for her professionalism and class in the face of all of Mr. Trump’s verbal assaults. Her questioning of Mr. Trump at the debate was tough but fair, and I fully support her as she continues to ask the probing and challenging questions that all presidential candidates may find difficult to answer.

“Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should. We have never been deterred by politicians or anyone else attacking us for doing our job, much less allowed ourselves to be bullied by anyone and we’re certainly not going to start now. All of our journalists will continue to report in the fair and balanced way that has made FOX News Channel the number one news network in the industry.”

Ailes’s verbal howitzer against the front-running Republican—a highly unusual deployment for any news organization, let alone one that has been the GOP establishment and home of conservative viewers—comes after what seemed a coordinated defense of Kelly by at least 10 other Fox News personalities today on Twitter and on air.

According to CNN’s Brian Stelter, the pro-Kelly comments included Fox & Friendsco-host Brian Kilmeade opining on Tuesday’s show that Trump is “totally out of control”; The Five co-host Dana Perino tweeting, “The intelligence, class & grace of Megyn Kelly shined last night after her week’s vacation with her family”; anchor Bret Baier, Kelly’s co-moderator at the debate, tweeting that Trump “has made his feelings clear. But THIS needs to stop;” and Sean Hannity tweeting to Trump, “Leave @Megynkelly Alone.”

So far, there has been no word on whether Trump will be welcome on Fox News if he continues his attacks and refuses to apologize.

EXCLUSIVE — ANN COULTER TO INTRODUCE DONALD TRUMP IN IOWA

Eleven-time New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter will introduce 2016 GOP frontrunner Donald Trump at a rally in Iowa on Tuesday, Breitbart News has learned exclusively.

“This is the first time I’ve thought there was hope for our country again since Nov. 7, 2012,” Coulter said in an email to Breitbart News when asked why she is introducing Trump.

Coulter, the author of the bestselling ¡Adios America! about immigration, is extraordinarily pleased by Trump’s immigration reform plan. On Breitbart News Sunday this weekend on Sirius XM Patriot, Coulter walked through how happy she was.

Coulter will be signing copies of her book at a Trump campaign rally in Dubuque, Iowa, at 4:30 p.m. CT and will be speaking before Trump in front of an expected crowd of 1,600.

Trump’s immigration reform plan aims to put Americans ahead of foreigners and special interests and has several aspects in it designed to do that. He wants to build a wall on the border, make Mexico pay for it, end birthright citizenship for anchor babies, and put restrictions on legal immigration designed to ensure Americans have first access to jobs instead of illegal immigrants or future foreigners.

Immigration Reform Can’t Wait

There is rarely a good time to do hard things, and America won’t advance if legislators act like seat-warmers.

When I learned that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor had lost his Republican primary, my heart sank. Not simply because I think he is an intelligent and talented member of Congress, or because I worry about the future of the Republican Party.

Like others who want comprehensive immigration reform, I worried that Mr. Cantor’s loss would be misconstrued and make Congress reluctant to tackle this urgent need. That would be the wrong lesson and an undesirable national consequence of this single, local election result.

People are looking for leadership—those who stand for something and offer a vision for how to take America forward and keep our nation economically competitive. One of the most immediate ways to revitalize our economy is by passing immigration reform.

ENLARGE

Newly naturalized U.S. citizens celebrate after taking the oath of citizenship in Washington, D.C., June 17. GETTY IMAGES

I chose to come to America and become a citizen because America was—and remains—the most free and entrepreneurial nation in the world. Our history is defined by people whose character and culture have been shaped by ambition, imagination and hard work, bound together by a dream of a better life.

Is the idea of immigration reform complicated by the fact that some immigrants went outside the legal system to be here? Yes. It is complicated even more by the fear some Americans have, quite naturally, of how changing populations might also change our culture, communities and economic circumstances.

You don’t have to take one immigrant’s word for it. The Partnership for a New American Economy, a bipartisan group of political and business leaders, reports that people who moved here from abroad or their children founded more than 40% of America’s Fortune 500 companies—businesses that collectively employ millions of people.

Do Americans really wish Google,eBay,Pfizer or Home Depot were headquartered in Eastern Europe or China instead of America? Whether it’s a high-profile tech company or a small business employing just 10 people, 28% of all new American businesses started in 2011 were founded by immigrants. Those are entrepreneurial people we want to continue to attract to our economy.

I don’t believe that people come to America to sit on their hands. The vast majority of America’s immigrants are hardworking, family-minded individuals with strong values. They are drawn here from many different places by a common belief that this is still the land of opportunity for those willing to work hard.

We need to give those individuals who are already here—after they have passed checks to ensure they are not dangerous criminals—a path to citizenship so they can pay their full taxes, be counted, and become more productive members of our community.

Next, we need to do away with the cap on H-1B visas, which is arbitrary and results in U.S. companies struggling to find the high-skill workers they need to continue growing. We already know that most of the applications for these visas are for computer programmers and engineers, where there is a shortage of qualified American candidates. But we are held back by the objections of the richly funded labor unions that mistakenly believe that if we keep innovation out of America, somehow nothing will change. They are wrong, and frankly as much to blame for our stalemate on this issue as nativists who scream about amnesty.

If we are serious about advancing our economic future and about creating job growth here in America, then we must realize that it is suicidal to suggest closing our doors to the world’s entrepreneurs, or worse, to continue with large-scale deportations.

That is not to suggest we don’t need to do a far better job securing our border. Border security should be an integral part of a comprehensive solution, and we should not dismiss the concerns of states that are struggling to deal with the consequences of ongoing illegal immigration.

Some politicians and pundits will argue that this is not the time to bring immigration reform to the congressional floor—that it will frighten an already anxious workforce and encourage more extreme candidates, especially on the right. They may be right about the short-term politics, but they are dead wrong about the long-term interests of our country.

Maybe, as someone who came here as an immigrant, I have more faith in the compassion and fortitude of the American people, and in their ability to reject extreme views on either side of the political spectrum. Or maybe, as a businessman, I have learned that there is rarely a good time to do the hard things.

That is why I was pleased to see Sen. Rand Paul and Grover Norquist,president of Americans for Tax Reform, step up their efforts to lobby for immigration reform.

President Obama has shown wise restraint despite pressure from the left to act, recognizing that a bipartisan approach on such an immense issue would be best. Remember ObamaCare?

However, if Congress fails to even try to have this important debate, the president might feel tempted to act via executive order. I hope it doesn’t get to that point, given the furious political firestorm that would result.

All the more reason, then, to recognize that the facts are on the side of reform, and democratic societies don’t advance when our elected officials act like seat-warmers.